FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2892218650> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2892218650 endingPage "1836" @default.
• W2892218650 startingPage "1825" @default.
• W2892218650 abstract "The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens Joanne M Osborne,1,2 Ingrid Flight,1 Carlene J Wilson,1,3,4 Gang Chen,1 Julie Ratcliffe,1 Graeme P Young1 1Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, Bedford Park, SA, Australia; 2Bowel Health Service, Repatriation General Hospital, Daw Park, SA, Australia; 3School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia; 4Olivia Newton John Cancer Wellness and Research Centre, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia Objective: In Australia and other countries, participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using fecal occult blood testing is low. Previous research suggests that fecal sampling induces disgust, so approaches not involving feces may increase participation. This study aimed to determine population preferences for CRC screening tests that utilize different sample collections (stool, blood, and saliva) and the extent to which specific attributes (convenience, performance, and cost) impact this preference. Materials and methods: People aged 50–74 years completed a survey. Preference for screening for CRC through stool, blood, and saliva was judged through ranking of preference and attributes critical to preference and confirmed via a discrete choice experiment (DCE) where test attributes were described as varying by performance, cost, and sample type. Participants also completed a measure of aversion to sample type. Results: A total of 1,282 people participated in the survey. The DCE and ranking exercise confirmed that all test attributes had a statistically significant impact on respondents’ preferences (P < 0.001). Blood and saliva were equally preferred over stool; however, test performance was the most influential attribute. In multivariable analyses, those who preferred blood to stool collection exhibited higher aversion to fecal (OR = 1.17; P ≤ 0.001) and saliva (OR = 1.06; P ≤ 0.05) sampling and perceived that they had less time for home sample collection (OR = 0.72, P ≤ 0.001). Those who preferred saliva to stool had higher aversion to fecal (OR = 1.15; P ≤ 0.001) and blood (OR = 1.06, P ≤ 0.01) sampling and less time for home sample collection (OR = 0.81, P ≤ 0.5). Conclusion: Aversion to sample type and perceived inconvenience of sample collection are significant drivers of screening preference. While blood and saliva sampling were the most preferred methods, test performance was the most important attribute of a screening test, regardless of sample type. Efforts to increase CRC screening participation should focus on a test, or combination of tests, that combines the attributes of high performance, low aversion, and convenience of use. Keywords: quantitative study, preference, discrete choice experiment, ranking, home stool test, Australia" @default.
• W2892218650 created "2018-09-27" @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5038896691 @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5065734975 @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5070505553 @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5079415708 @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5091380648 @default.
• W2892218650 creator A5091495489 @default.
• W2892218650 date "2018-09-01" @default.
• W2892218650 modified "2023-10-11" @default.
• W2892218650 title "The impact of sample type and procedural attributes on relative acceptability of different colorectal cancer screening regimens" @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1523222259 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1964602730 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1967482845 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1968767619 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1974809315 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1981005991 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1986732380 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1990106587 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W1995799988 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2003372139 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2018115135 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2018561421 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2021362203 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2033285580 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2034471245 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2041250426 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2050384668 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2059676356 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2061935394 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2063549931 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2065207814 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2078318822 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2084079086 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2084843230 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2094236306 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2097680546 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2111521400 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2118498390 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2120203042 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2127095817 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2130610321 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2141913559 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2147072570 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2151334461 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2154477723 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2156470267 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2157037223 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2167759796 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2279715668 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2282105505 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2334476518 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2345625186 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2367713645 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2411275938 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2462517207 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W2558969828 @default.
• W2892218650 cites W3125291297 @default.
• W2892218650 doi "https://doi.org/10.2147/ppa.s172143" @default.
• W2892218650 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6154741" @default.
• W2892218650 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30271126" @default.
• W2892218650 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2892218650 type Work @default.
• W2892218650 sameAs 2892218650 @default.
• W2892218650 citedByCount "26" @default.
• W2892218650 countsByYear W28922186502019 @default.
• W2892218650 countsByYear W28922186502020 @default.
• W2892218650 countsByYear W28922186502021 @default.
• W2892218650 countsByYear W28922186502022 @default.
• W2892218650 countsByYear W28922186502023 @default.
• W2892218650 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5038896691 @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5065734975 @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5070505553 @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5079415708 @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5091380648 @default.
• W2892218650 hasAuthorship W2892218650A5091495489 @default.
• W2892218650 hasBestOaLocation W28922186501 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C105795698 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C121608353 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C149923435 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C2781249084 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C526805850 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C74909509 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConceptScore W2892218650C105795698 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConceptScore W2892218650C121608353 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConceptScore W2892218650C126322002 @default.
• W2892218650 hasConceptScore W2892218650C144024400 @default.

• next